aquarius,

"Oliver, thank you for your post. I don't believe many Christians actually believe the stories in the Bible are true as in, "handed down directly from God". Most Christians believe the Bible was written by man in the presence of God. Being that God was with in them, not dictating each and every word. - aquarius

Thanks.

No only Christians. Also, the Laws of Moses {Exodos], before that Laws of Abraham [family god.] "Wisdom" and laws is associated [influenced Zorocaster] with Ahuza Mazda. To quote Zorocaster:

"I will speak of that which is the Holiest declared to be as the word best mortals to obey; [next, a direct quote from God:] 'They who at my binding render him [Zorocaster] obedience shal in return attain all unto Welfare and Immortalaity by the actions of the God Sprit" [Yasna 43:11] ... In immoratality shall the soul of the righteous be joyful , in perpetuity shall be the tomrments of the Liars. All this doth Mazduh Ahura appoint by his dominion" [Yasna 45:5-7].

Earlier still we have the God Shamash, "who gave Hammurabi his laws".
"Shamash... is paised as the doing of just among men; punisher of evildoers,and helper of the oppressed". [McNeill]

What I find curious is Sells and Christians can read the above and not agree that the anient world was a "God Factory" [Wells]. Faced with the above and not seeing the links remind of me of O'Brian in 1984, [Room 101], being able to convince really convince Winson [Sellick] Smith, the number of figures stated by O'Brian is true, against obvious contractions. [Orwell]

Like Forrest Gump, Christians have an assotment of gods [chocolates]:

- The God of Abraham [Tribal supremacy]
- The God of Moses [The Law]
- The Teachings of Jesus [The Kindom of Heaven]
- The Hellenisation of Jesus [What about the Gentiles?]
- The Institutionalisation of earlier cults [Creeds, doctrine
(Nicaea)]

Related, the OT and NT have differnt godheads, and,several trinities and natures of divinity were discussed "leading to" [there was a halg council in 190), before Nicaea (325).

Oliver
You’re quite right, many religions preceded and influenced Judaism and Christianity. Within the Judeo-Christian tradition there have been some interesting deviations and blind alleys in the development of the understanding of God, including the household gods stolen by Rachel from her father Laban (Gen 31.19), and intimations of a plurality of gods or supernatural beings in early texts. Archaeological evidence suggest that early temple of worship of Yahweh often were also dedicated a goddess, his mate.

This stuff is confronting for fundamentalists, but for those of us who see our faith as part of an evolving tradition it’s fascinating and rich part of our history.

Once again I think people misunderstand the connection between what was written 1700 years ago and what people today actually believe and practice. There is an element from with in every religion who want the text to be the literal word of their God and for it to be observed as such. We call them fundamentalist and for them there has not been nor ever will be a reformation or any renaissance or enlightenment. If they budge one iota their faith and their guide book will be lost to them. Outside of this group there are many who generation after generation have taken great comfort in their written faith BUT place a greater value on their own interpretation and everyday use and have no fear of loosing their faith if they stumble as human beings. They are critical of their Church and of their religious leaders use of that text to guide the parishioners.
Religion does not dictate morality or social values. And while religious leaders may try to direct their parishioners to a moral and ethical high ground, advances in medicine, social configurations and other consideration weigh in with grater over all influence with in the grey areas of morality and ethics. A good bow bends not breaks. The textual language of mans Holy Books has changed very little but, mans interpretation has moved back and forth with in the bounds of the two extremes since the first writing. Prostitution is a moral hazard. Not just for men and women in the sex trade but, for all people who prostitute themselves for what maybe seen as easy gain with out consideration for the personal cost of "self".

Rhian and acqviuvs,

You both display an insight to your religion, I can respect. You adopt a forensic approach before drawing conclusions. Not so for, Sells, and many Theist contributors, here. Perhaps, a Forum presents biased population, but, I don't see parishioners and congregations pressing there priests, ministers and pastors, to revisit theological histographies, outside their churches. Relatedly, a Theist and an Athitheist, should hold a null hypthesis, as weak possibilty to their kernel beliefs. Herein, Dawkins admits he is not an "absolutist". Sells is, apparently: He knows he is infallible in matters of faith.

I have never been Anti-Theist, but I have been anti-Religion running block-defence between their respective denomination's teachings and the so called "lay" discovering history for themselves, before, said lay persons reach independent conclusions. A forsenic approach versus "indwelling" [Polanyi] the reinforcing [Skinner] performance of religious worship.

I can understand Sells ignoring athiest "snipers" with little say. But, Sells also ignores the posits of some high octate scientists, historians and philosophers. The is no null hypothesis, no doubt.

Most sincerely,

O.

Aqvarivs and Rhian: excellent posts.

I agree not many Christians in Australia are biblical literalists. Most energetic and thoughtful bible-types approach it differently. It seems to be different in the US, and I think the criticism we receive is largely a reaction to that.

In fact, it’s gone a step further. In some dialogues between Sam Harris (The End of Faith) and prominent Christians, Sam prefers to deal with fundamentalists. They are easy to discredit. Once a Christian presents as a “moderate”, he goes them for not accepting their own scriptures! So, this means that, if Sam Harris were a Christian, he would be a fundamentalist himself. I was very surprised, as he seems not only very intelligent but very principled. Have you ever come across this kind of thing yourself?

Waterboy, What if the “rules” in the Bible are actually about different levels of harm? Arguably, God has not invented rules for their own sake. Perhaps harm is the point after all. The “Jesus commandment” to love your neighbour as yourself doesn’t get any traction unless the individual loves themselves, and takes care of themselves. Perhaps Sellick's rationale is that certain behaviour can harm your psyche or your spirit. God, assuming for a moment he exists, is in a position to know about this kind of cause-and-effect.

Oliver, Yes, monotheism evolved from a very untidy situation that was congested with local, special-purpose gods. This doesn’t mean monotheism isn’t true. As for Sellick, surely he is permitted to claim to “know” something. Dawkins would have us believe that there is no such thing as knowledge. I was surprised to see him say he is not, according to his own categories, a “strong atheist”. I am still reading him and finding his constant resort to probability – itself somewhat mysterious, I would have thought – very interesting.

I agree that theists should not force-feed people on their beliefs. You'll have to say the same thing to the Dawkinsians. Meanwhile, priests do get pressure from the number of "laiety" who are educated in theology (incl modern scriptural scholarship).

Pax

Great posts from Aqvarivs, Rhainn and Goodthief. I feel that any of you would have made a more credible argument from a Christian's point of view as to whether and why if yes, prostitution is a moral hazard, than the author of the article.

If Christian morality could only be defended by declaring 'because God said so' and to do otherwise 'you'd be punished by Him' would make commands from God arbitrary and frivolous.